How workplace policies & attitude barriers make it difficult for women to shine in US corporations

Related problems stem from the lack of flexible schedules, meaningful part-time positions and affordable quality childcare. Although women in top managerial and professional positions often are in workplaces that offer reduced or flexi-time arrangements, few of these women take advantage of them.

Most believe, with reason, that any limitation in hours or availability would jeopardize their careers, and that they would end up working more than their status and compensation justified. These inadequate workplace policies and unequal family responsibilities help account for gender differences in paid leadership positions .

Almost 20% of women with graduate or professional degrees have stepped out of the labour force, compared with only 5% of similarly credentialed men. In organizations with few if any women in positions of power, gender is particularly salient and negatively affects women lower in the ranks, despite balanced representation at those levels.

Attitudinal Barriers

Women are becoming more like men in their career aspirations and achievements and are more willing to see themselves as having characteristics associated with authority. So, too, recent theories of leadership have stressed the importance of interpersonal qualities commonly attributed to women, such as co-operation , collaboration and interpersonal sensitivity.

An emerging body of scholarship suggests that the most effective style of leadership in today's world is 'transformational' . Leaders who take this approach emphasize gaining the trust and confidence of followers and empowering them to develop their own potential.

Meta-analyses of studies involving thousands of leaders suggest that women are somewhat more transformational than men, especially in providing support for subordinates. Yet despite these trends, the legacy of traditional gender stereotypes remains. Women have long suffered from a double standard and double bind in the exercise of authority. They are thought too aggressive or not aggressive enough, and what appears assertive in a man appears abrasive in a woman.

As noted above, women who conform to traditional feminine stereotypes are often liked but not respected: they are judged too soft, emotional and unassertive to make tough calls and project the necessary 'presence' in positions of authority. By contrast, women who adopt more masculine traits are often respected but not liked: they are seen as domineering, strident and cold.

Self-promoting behaviour that appears self-confident or entrepreneurial in men often looks pushy and 'unfeminine' in women. In effect, women face a trade-off between competence and likeability in circumstances where effective leadership requires both. Recent research suggests that two co-existing and complementary forms of sexism—one benevolent and the other one hostile—lie at the root of this dilemma.

Benevolent sexism is "a subjectively favourable , chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles" and is used to reward women who conform to traditional gender role expectations. Hostile sexism is "antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men's power" and is used to punish women who challenge the status quo.

Taken together, these prejudices reflect ambivalence about women, promoting polarized responses to them. This double bind helps account for why women continue to be rated lower than men on most of the qualities associated with leadership. People more readily credit men with leadership ability and more readily accept men as leaders.

More Americans prefer a male to a female boss, and women have a stronger preference than men. The presence of a few highly regarded women at the top creates the illusion that the glass ceiling has been shattered for everyone else. But when superstars fail or opt out, their departures attract particular notice and reinforce stereotypes about women's lesser capabilities and commitment.

(Excerpted by permission from Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, published by Harvard Business Press)